California San Diego County Driving Influence Drug Methamphetamine Insufficient Evidence Lawyers Att
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERMEMIAS AGUILERA TORRES, Defendant and Appellant.
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
May 5, 2009, Filed
San Diego Police Narcotics Detective Ray Morales was surveilling a house and saw Torres drive up to it in a pickup truck. Torres went into the house for about five minutes and then returned to the truck and drove off. Morales followed the truck and radioed to other officers. Shortly afterwards, San Diego Police Officer Ariel Savage pulled Torres over for failing to stop the truck at the limit line of an intersection. Before initiating the traffic stop, Savage followed the truck for about a half a block. Torres did not "blow through" the intersection, he did not lock up the truck's brakes and come to a screeching halt, and he was not involved in any near-miss accidents with other vehicles. He simply did not bring the truck to a complete stop until after half the truck had passed the limit line. Torres cooperated with Savage during the stop; After observing the traffic stop, Morales approached Torres. Morales found Torres to be nervous and a bit agitated. Torres's demeanor fluctuated between remorsefulness, indifference, and paranoia. He was sweating profusely, his muscles were rigid, and he could not stand still. He appeared sleepy, but his eyes were wide open and watery. Torres was subsequently arrested and transported to the police station. Morales examined Torres to determine whether he was under the influence of drugs. The examination occurred approximately one hour and 40 minutes after the traffic stop. A jury of the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, convicted defendant of misdemeanor driving while under the influence of a drug (methamphetamine), in violation of Veh. Code, § 23152(a). Defendant appealed.
Issues:
Discussion:
The Court states that "for guilty of driving while under the influence of drugs in violation of Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a), the drugs must have so far affected the nervous system, the brain, or muscles of the individual as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his or her faculties. It is not enough that the drug could impair an individual's driving ability or that the person is under the influence to some detectable degree. Rather, the drug must actually impair the individual's driving ability. In this case there was no evidence that defendant's methamphetamine use actually impaired his driving ability on the night of his arrest. Two officers observed defendant, and neither testified that he was driving erratically. Defendant was pulled over for failing to stop at the limit line, a common traffic violation that a toxicologist testified was not sufficient to establish that a person was under the influence for driving purposes. The toxicologist also testified that symptoms of fidgetiness, sweatiness, and a high pulse rate did not make a person an unsafe driver. Although she testified that dilated pupils from methamphetamine use might cause momentary blindness during driving, there was no evidence that defendant experienced such blindness. Similarly, without expert evidence correlating muscle rigidity to impaired driving or evidence that defendant was actually driving unsafely; the most the jury could infer was that defendant's muscle rigidity had the potential to affect his driving ability. The jury could not infer that his muscle rigidity actually affected his driving ability.
Conclusion:
This Court held conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction and reverse the judgment. In view of our conclusion, we do not address Torres's other arguments.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
May 5, 2009, Filed
San Diego Police Narcotics Detective Ray Morales was surveilling a house and saw Torres drive up to it in a pickup truck. Torres went into the house for about five minutes and then returned to the truck and drove off. Morales followed the truck and radioed to other officers. Shortly afterwards, San Diego Police Officer Ariel Savage pulled Torres over for failing to stop the truck at the limit line of an intersection. Before initiating the traffic stop, Savage followed the truck for about a half a block. Torres did not "blow through" the intersection, he did not lock up the truck's brakes and come to a screeching halt, and he was not involved in any near-miss accidents with other vehicles. He simply did not bring the truck to a complete stop until after half the truck had passed the limit line. Torres cooperated with Savage during the stop; After observing the traffic stop, Morales approached Torres. Morales found Torres to be nervous and a bit agitated. Torres's demeanor fluctuated between remorsefulness, indifference, and paranoia. He was sweating profusely, his muscles were rigid, and he could not stand still. He appeared sleepy, but his eyes were wide open and watery. Torres was subsequently arrested and transported to the police station. Morales examined Torres to determine whether he was under the influence of drugs. The examination occurred approximately one hour and 40 minutes after the traffic stop. A jury of the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, convicted defendant of misdemeanor driving while under the influence of a drug (methamphetamine), in violation of Veh. Code, § 23152(a). Defendant appealed.
Issues:
- Whether there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction?
- Whether the trial Court erred by y failing to give a unanimity instruction sua sponte?
Discussion:
The Court states that "for guilty of driving while under the influence of drugs in violation of Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a), the drugs must have so far affected the nervous system, the brain, or muscles of the individual as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his or her faculties. It is not enough that the drug could impair an individual's driving ability or that the person is under the influence to some detectable degree. Rather, the drug must actually impair the individual's driving ability. In this case there was no evidence that defendant's methamphetamine use actually impaired his driving ability on the night of his arrest. Two officers observed defendant, and neither testified that he was driving erratically. Defendant was pulled over for failing to stop at the limit line, a common traffic violation that a toxicologist testified was not sufficient to establish that a person was under the influence for driving purposes. The toxicologist also testified that symptoms of fidgetiness, sweatiness, and a high pulse rate did not make a person an unsafe driver. Although she testified that dilated pupils from methamphetamine use might cause momentary blindness during driving, there was no evidence that defendant experienced such blindness. Similarly, without expert evidence correlating muscle rigidity to impaired driving or evidence that defendant was actually driving unsafely; the most the jury could infer was that defendant's muscle rigidity had the potential to affect his driving ability. The jury could not infer that his muscle rigidity actually affected his driving ability.
Conclusion:
This Court held conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction and reverse the judgment. In view of our conclusion, we do not address Torres's other arguments.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Source...